around constantly in recent years. 
But legally and constitutionally, people have the right to publish what they want, and accuracy is not a legal requirement.
What does this mean to our present-day journalistic and political environment?
But legally and constitutionally, people have the right to publish what they want, and accuracy is not a legal requirement.
What does this mean to our present-day journalistic and political environment?
The 1969 US Supreme Court ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio is the defining legal principle that we see functioning in the era of "fake news" -- the idea that the free "marketplace" competition of ideas will allow the truth to emerge. In other words, in free and open public discourse, ideas will be accepted or rejected according to their worthiness and public acceptance. As a result, the only limitation on free speech by the government is a few narrow exceptions necessary for the public good, such as limiting speech that advocates crime.
Journalists have a code of ethics that professionals are expected to follow. It does allow things like anonymous sources if the source runs the risk of harm from divulging the information. But when using anonymous sources, the journalist is expected to be skeptical of possible falsity or self-serving claims and make credible efforts to confirm the information.
Research shows, however, that the general public defines "fake news" as news in which the facts are questionable or that contradicts their view of the world (see https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news-study.php).
This is where the rhetoric claiming "fake news" comes in. Often, such an accusation is an attempt to "game the system" and to discredit unfavorable evidence that is, nevertheless, factual or correct. If we brand it as "fake" we hope that it will be discounted in the "marketplace of ideas" and ideas that are more favorable to ours will gain the most traction, regardless of their objective truth.
The recent radical shift toward mainstream acceptance of outright falsehoods and legitimizing conspiracy theory suggests that the "marketplace of ideas" may not always lead us to the objective truth.
Instead, it seems to be a question of whose "bully pulpit" screams the conspiracy theories and falsehoods the loudest, because the follow-up fact checks (or even insincere apologies) are rarely heard by as many people as hear the original questionable assertions.
Instead, it seems to be a question of whose "bully pulpit" screams the conspiracy theories and falsehoods the loudest, because the follow-up fact checks (or even insincere apologies) are rarely heard by as many people as hear the original questionable assertions.
